Why are we talking about the’ Ransom ” ?
Isn’t the case about whether or not there is a rental agreement in place and nothing to do with buying ?
Anything else is pointless.
As a purely barrack room lawyer I’d say the case will be decided by whether A, there is an agreement in place already and if so has anyone tried to work outside it.
B, If “Dave” is offering less then he may be in breach? He claims to have offered two amounts so far, why make any offer if you have an agreement?
If there is an agreement then is there a clause that allows for termination, if so Swann wins, if not then Hilton wins.
The “ransom strip” is a pointless false flag in this particular debate in my opinion
